Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of the legislation. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your leadership on efforts to address warrantless surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or ``FISA'' and for introducing a bill that corrects many of the shortcomings of the bill that passed the House last August. The RESTORE Act establishes a strong framework, much stronger than the Administration's PROTECT Act, to fight terrorism effectively, while providing reasonable safeguards to protect personal privacy. One important change in the Restore Act is that it draws the appropriate distinctions based on the physical location and types of targets. There has never been any controversy over the fact that surveillance directed at people all of whom are overseas does not need any warrant at all. This bill rightly makes it clear that no court orders are required for the government to conduct surveillance on foreign targets outside the United States, even if the technical surveillance is conducted on U.S. soil. But if any surveillance is intentionally conducted on a U.S. person, this bill makes it clear that the government needs to apply for an individual warrant to conduct that surveillance. And if information on U.S. persons is incidentally collected, the Manager's Amendment to the bill rightly limits dissemination of that information among government agencies. Second, the bill removes vague and overbroad language from the bill passed in August that would allow the wiretapping of conversations without a warrant if the communication was ``concerning'' a foreign target. That, by its own wording, suggests that if two citizens are in the United States talking about somebody overseas, that you could wiretap their communications without a warrant. The bill before us makes it clear that the persons involved in the communications must be overseas, not just that the subject of their conversation must be overseas. Third, the RESTORE Act goes a step further than the Administration's bill and allows for the expanded wiretapping authority only in cases involving ``national security,'' as opposed to the over-expansive ``foreign intelligence.'' ``Foreign intelligence'' could include trade, deals or anything involving general foreign affairs activities. Finally, the RESTORE Act was made even stronger in Committee by requiring the Department of Justice, in its application to the Court, to identify the ``primary purpose'' of its wiretapping. Under the original FISA, when an agent wanted to obtain the authority to conduct electronic surveillance or secret searches, a certificate was necessary detailing what the purpose of the surveillance was in order to obtain the warrant. The standard was altered by the Patriot Act, which provided that obtaining foreign intelligence only has to be ``a significant purpose.'' We have to put this change in context because the Department of Justice has not credibly refuted the allegations that some U.S. Attorneys were fired, because they failed to indict Democrats in time to affect an upcoming election. So if the Department of Justice wiretapped someone when foreign intelligence was not the primary purpose, you have to wonder what the primary purpose was. This bill would allow the surveillance to be conducted but the administration would be required to reveal the true purpose of the wiretap to the secret FISA court. Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize that we do not have to balance security and privacy. It is therefore important to note that everything that the administration can do in its own bill, it can do under this bill. We just require them to get a warrant before they do it, or if they are in a hurry, get a warrant after they do it, but they can wiretap and get the information. We just provide a modicum of oversight to ensure that our laws are being obeyed. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation that will establish a grant program at the U.S. Department of Education to encourage and enhance the study of Modeling and Simulation at institutions of higher education. Modeling and Simulation has become an essential component in ensuring that we meet both the defense and domestic challenges of the 21st century. Modeling and Simulation technology allows us to easily and effectively sharpen the tools, procedures, and decisions needed to address difficult and complex problems. Earlier this year, this body passed by voice vote House Resolution 487, introduced by my Virginia colleague Congressman Randy Forbes of Virginia, which recognized Modeling and Simulation as a national critical technology. This critical technology allows us to build and develop computer models of complex systems--whether a car, an airplane, an entire battlefield, or even a major city's evacuation plan--to see how certain actions will affect the end result. These simulations help us develop better and practical analogies of real world situations. Modeling and Simulation is a rapidly expanding field and we must ensure that the United States maintains its competitive edge in this field by expanding Modeling and Simulation programs at our institutions of higher education. The bill that I am introducing today will ensure that this national critical technology is expanded at our Nation's colleges and universities. Specifically, the bill will establish a grant program for colleges and universities to enhance and improve already established Modeling and Simulation programs. Colleges and universities without Modeling and Simulation programs can also use the grant to establish their own program. The bill will also create a task force at the Department of Education to support the development of the Modeling and Simulation field, including helping to further define the study and identify the best practices of Modeling and Simulation. I am proud to represent the people and businesses of the Third Congressional District of Virginia who are leading the way in the Modeling and Simulation field. Numerous colleges and universities in the Hampton Roads area, such as Hampton University, Norfolk State University, and Old Dominion University, have Modeling and Simulation programs. Old Dominion University is one of the few universities that has both an undergraduate degree program and a graduate degree program in Modeling and Simulation. ODU's Modeling, Analysis and Simulation Center in Suffolk, Virginia is a premier facility that is second to none. The grant program established by this legislation will go a long way in helping universities that have Modeling and Simulation programs expand and enhance their programs, as well as helping universities without a Modeling and Simulation program establish their own program. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor and support this important legislation to ensure that the United States maintains its competitive advantage in the critical national technology field of Modeling and Simulation.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3013) to provide appropriate protection to attorney-client privileged communications and attorney work product, as amended.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I enter into the Record a letter from the American Bar Association outlining their support for this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the House would adopt the bill. American Bar Association, Chicago, IL, November 8, 2007. Re H.R. 3013, the ``Attorney-Client Privilege Protection Act of 2007.'' Dear Representative: On behalf of the American Bar Association (``ABA'') and its more than 415,000 members, I write to express our strong support for H.R. 3013, the ``Attorney-Client Privilege Protection Act of 2007.'' This bipartisan bill, sponsored by Representatives Bobby Scott, John Conyers, Lamar Smith, Randy Forbes, and eight other Members of Congress from both parties, was approved unanimously by the House Judiciary Committee on August 1 and will be considered by the full House next week under suspension of the rules. We urge you to vote in favor of this important legislation. H.R. 3013 is a comprehensive reform measure designed to roll back a number of harmful federal agency policies that are seriously eroding the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine and the constitutional rights of employees. Although all of these federal policies raise concerns, the most problematic is the Department of Justice's policy--set forth in the 2003 ``Thompson Memorandum'' and 2006 ``McNulty Memorandum''--that pressures companies and other organizations to waive their privileges as a condition for receiving cooperation credit, and hence leniency, during investigations. In addition, these federal policies contain separate provisions that violate employees' Sixth Amendment right to counsel and Fifth Amendment right against self- incrimination by pressuring companies to not pay their employees' legal fees during investigations, to fire the employees for not waiving their rights, or to take other punitive actions against them long before any guilt has been established. Despite the serious concerns raised by congressional leaders, former Justice Department officials, and the legal and business communities, the Department of Justice and other federal agencies have refused to reverse or fundamentally change their harmful privilege waiver or employee rights policies. Although the Department reluctantly issued new cooperation guidelines on December 12, 2006 as part of the McNulty Memorandum, the new policy falls far short of what is needed to prevent further erosion of fundamental attorney- client privilege, work product, and employee legal protections. As demonstrated by the report that former Delaware Chief Justice Norman Veasey recently sent to congressional leaders, the McNulty Memorandum has not significantly reduced the incidence of government coerced waiver, and federal prosecutors continue to routinely demand waiver of the privilege during investigations despite the new policy. (The Veasey Report is available at http://www.abanetorg/poladv/ priorities/privilegewaiver/cjveaseyletter.pdf.) As a result, the Department's new policy continues to seriously weaken the confidential attorney-client relationship between companies and their lawyers, which, in turn, impedes the lawyers' ability to conduct thorough internal investigations and effectively counsel compliance with the law. This harms companies, employees and the investing public as well. In addition, while the McNulty Memorandum bars prosecutors from requiring companies to not pay their employees' legal fees in some cases, it continues to allow the practice in many instances. The new Department policy and other similar federal policies also continue to deny cooperation credit to companies that assist employees with their legal defenses or decline to fire them for exercising their Fifth Amendment rights. By forcing companies to punish employees long before any guilt has been shown, these federal policies weaken the constitutional presumption of innocence and undermine principles of sound corporate governance. H.R. 3013 would reverse these harmful policies by prohibiting federal agencies from pressuring companies or other organizations to waive their privileges or take certain unfair punitive actions against their employees as conditions for receiving cooperation credit during investigations. At the same time, however, the bill specifically preserves the ability of prosecutors and other federal officials to obtain the important, non-privileged factual material they need to punish wrongdoers and enforce the law. In our view, H.R. 3013 would strike the proper balance between effective law enforcement and the preservation of essential attorney-client privilege, work product and employee legal protections, and we urge you to support the bill during next week's floor vote. Thank you for considering the views of the American Bar Association on this subject, which is of such vital importance to our system of justice. If you have any questions regarding the ABA's views or need more information, please ask your staff to contact Larson Frisby of the ABA Governmental Affairs Office at (202) 662-1098. Sincerely, William H. Neukom, President. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I introduced H.R. 3013, the Attorney-Client Privilege Protection Act of 2007 on July 12 of this year. At the time, I was joined by eight original bipartisan cosponsors, including the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Conyers; ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Smith; Crime Subcommittee ranking member, Mr. Forbes; and other members, Mr. Coble, Mr. Davis of Alabama, Mr. Lungren, Mr. Feeney and Mr. Roskam. I would like to take a moment to personally thank each of them for their support. The purpose of H.R. 3013 is fairly simple and straightforward. It is designed to prevent a practice that has regrettably become too common in many of Federal Government's recent investigations into corporate wrongdoing. I am specifically referring to the government's use of what are called ``coercive waivers'' to gain access to privileged communications that otherwise would remain private and protected under the constitutional doctrine of attorney-client privilege. Coercing waivers of corporate attorney-client privilege has not always been the practice among Federal prosecutors. Formerly, a company could produce evidence of its ``cooperation'' with prosecutors by providing insight into relevant corporate information, as well as by providing general access to the company's workplace and its employees. Unfortunately, since that time, memoranda issued by the Department of Justice suggest that the policy has changed to one which now exposes corporations to an increased risk of prosecution if they claim this constitutionally protected privilege. One of the first such memoranda was issued in 1999. The Holder memorandum was designed to provide prosecutors with factors to be considered when determining whether to charge a corporation with criminal activity, and specifically allowed prosecutors, in gauging the extent of a corporation's cooperation, to consider the corporation's willingness to waive attorney-client privilege and work-product privilege. This memorandum was superceded in 2003 by the Thompson memorandum. This memorandum contained the same language regarding the waiver of attorney-client privilege and work-product privileges and also addressed the adverse weight that might be given to a corporation's participation in a joint defense agreement with its officers or employees and its agreement to pay legal fees. Today, the current Department policies relating to corporate attorney-client privilege and work-product privileges are embodied in the McNulty memorandum, issued in December of last year. While this new memorandum does state that the waiver requests should be the exception rather than the rule, it continues to threaten the viability of attorney-client privilege in business organizations by allowing prosecutors to request a waiver of privilege upon the finding of so- called ``legitimate need.'' I fully recognize the Department may face hurdles when undertaking investigations and prosecutions of corporate malfeasance. We look at the victims of Enron's collapse, the nearly 10,000 individuals who lost their jobs and pensions, their plans for their future, and know how vital it is for Federal prosecutors to have the tools necessary to prosecute these crimes and hold accountable wrongdoers who profit at the expense of ordinary working men and women. However, I also believe that facilitating and even encouraging such investigations should not come at the expense of vital constitutionally protected rights. H.R. 3013 therefore prohibits the demanding of constitutionally protected materials as a necessary condition of receiving favorable consideration in decisions relating to prosecution and sentencing. This bill is supported by diverse groups such as the American Bar Association, the Chamber of Commerce, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Heritage Foundation. That said, Mr. Speaker, I would like to once again thank the bipartisan members of the committee who have joined me in supporting this measure. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, historically black colleges and universities play a pivotal role in America's higher education system and continue to educate many black American students as well as students of other races every year. Today, we have over 100 historically black colleges and universities in the Nation, 5 percent of our colleges and universities; yet these institutions award almost 30 percent of all college degrees obtained by African Americans. In some areas of science, math and engineering, these colleges account for almost half or more of such degrees awarded to African Americans. HBCUs are also responsible for a large number of graduate and professional degrees earned by African Americans. This bill will provide the necessary capital that will ensure that HBCUs have all of the options available to them in order to maintain their excellent standard of education. This bill is supported by the Department of Education and three historically black college and university advocacy groups; the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education, or NAFEO; Thurgood Marshall College Fund; and the United Negro College Fund. I would like to thank the majority whip, Mr. Clyburn, and particularly thank the chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, Mr. Miller, as well as their staffs who worked so hard to address this issue in a timely manner. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Second Chance Act and would like to commend Mr. Davis from Illinois and the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon) for their continued leadership on this bill and also acknowledge the dedication and tireless efforts of many members of the diverse coalition of national, State and local organizations referred to by Chairman Conyers. While our national crime rates may have fallen significantly over the last decade, we have seen an unprecedented explosion in our prison and jail populations. Today, over 2.2 million people are incarcerated in Federal and State jails and prisons, a 10-fold increase since 1980 and at a present cost of $65 billion. As a result of this focus on incarceration, the United States leads the world in per capita incarceration rates, over 700 per 100,000 population. While most of the world locks up about 50 to 200 per 100,000, the United States is first in the world at over 700 per 100,000. And as a result, more than 650,000 people will be released from Federal and State prisons to communities nationwide, along with 9 million people leaving local jails. Unfortunately, the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates that two-thirds of the offenders leave State and Federal prisons are rearrested in 3 years. If we are to reduce the number of inmates returning to prison, we need to provide our ex- offenders with the education and training necessary for them to obtain and hold steady jobs. They also need drug treatment, and medical and mental health services to decrease the chances they will come back to prison. The Second Chance Act will provide these investments, and every study shows it will not only reduce crime but also save money in the process. Mr. Speaker, it is very infrequent that we have the opportunity to reduce crime and save money. I hope we will take that opportunity today and pass this bill.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1011, the Virginia Ridge and Valley Act of 2007, introduced by my colleague from Virginia's Ninth Congressional District, Congressman Rick Boucher. I am proud to have been an original cosponsor of this important conservation legislation in this Congress and in the last Congress and I commend Congressman Boucher for all his hard work on this bill over the years. This bipartisan bill will protect approximately 54,000 acres of the Jefferson National Forest in Virginia through the designation of additional wilderness areas and the creation of new National Scenic Areas. Although mechanized traffic and equipment would be prohibited in much of these areas, recreational activities would be permitted and encouraged throughout these new designations contributing to the local economy of Southwest Virginia. Protecting these additional acres of pristine forest will ensure that future generations will be able to enjoy the natural beauty of Southwest Virginia. We must also be vigilant in protecting environmentally sensitive areas by promoting responsible land use plans, which this bill does. The bill before us today was reported out of the Natural Resources Committee by voice vote, is endorsed by the U.S. Forest Service, and is supported by Virginia Governor Tim Kaine, members from both parties in the Virginia delegation, both of Virginia's Senators, John Warner and Jim Webb, the Board of Supervisors in Bland County, Craig County, Montgomery County, and Smyth County, and various environmental organizations, including the League of Conservation Voters, the Garden Club of Virginia, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society, and the Virginia Wilderness Committee. Mr. Speaker, this bill is vitally important to conservation efforts in the Commonwealth of Virginia and to guaranteeing that future generations of Americans can experience the natural wonder and beauty of Southwest Virginia. I applaud Congressman Boucher and his staff for all of their hard work on this bill. I encourage my colleagues to support the legislation and I encourage each of them to experience firsthand the pristine natural beauty of Southwest Virginia.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the vote to override the President's veto of H.R. 976, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act. While the bill vetoed by President Bush was a watered down version of the bill passed by the House, it was at least a step in the right direction. The SCHIP bill that Congress sent to the President was a bipartisan effort that renews and improves the Children's Health Insurance program, providing health care coverage for 10 million children. This bill preserves coverage for the 6 million children currently covered by SCHIP and expands coverage to nearly 4 million more uninsured children. Madam Speaker, two-thirds of Americas' uninsured children are currently eligible for SCHIP or Medicaid but are not enrolled for various reasons. This bill gives states the resources and incentives to enroll, those children. The President's budget proposal would have increased SCHIP by $5 billion over the next 5 years. This increase fails to cover the costs of simply maintaining the current SCHIP enrollment of 6 million children. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office, over the next 5 years, the President's budget would result in over 1 million children losing their SCHIP coverage. Madam Speaker, the SCHIP reauthorization is supposed to be a bill to expand coverage, not reduce it. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and appreciate his leadership in efforts to address warrantless surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, and for introducing a bill that corrects many of the shortcomings of the bill that passed the House last August. The RESTORE Act establishes a strong framework, much stronger than the administration's bill, to fight terrorism effectively, while providing reasonable safeguards to protect personal privacy. There are several important clarifications made in the bill. One important change draws the appropriate distinctions based on physical location and types of targets. There has never been any controversy over the fact that surveillance directed at people, all of whom are overseas, you don't need a warrant in that situation. The second is that the bill removes vague and overbroad language in the bill that passed last August that would allow wiretapping of conversations without a warrant if the communication was concerning a foreign target. That by its own wording suggests that if two citizens are in the United States talking about someone overseas, you could wiretap their communications without a warrant. The bill before us makes it clear that the persons involved in the conversation must be overseas, not just that the subject of the conversation must be overseas. Third, the RESTORE Act goes a step further than the administration's bill and only allows expanded wiretapping authority in cases involving foreign intelligence unless it relates specifically to national security, as opposed to the overexpansive nature of foreign intelligence. Foreign intelligence can include anything, a trade deal or anything of general foreign affairs activities. If you are talking about national security, let's talk about national security. Finally, the RESTORE Act was made even stronger in the committee by requiring the Department of Justice in its application to the court to specify the primary purpose of the wiretapping. Under FISA, when an agent wanted to obtain a warrant, he had to certify the purpose of the wiretap. The standard was altered in the PATRIOT Act which says it only has to be a significant purpose. We have to put this change in context because the Department of Justice has not credibly refuted the allegations that some U.S. Attorneys were fired because they failed to indict Democrats in time to affect an upcoming election. So if the Department of Justice wiretapped someone when foreign intelligence is not the primary purpose, you have to wonder what the primary purpose is. This bill would require the administration to reveal the true purpose of the wiretap. Mr. Speaker, in the fight against terrorism, we do not have to sacrifice constitutional protections or trust this administration to secretly protect the rights of Americans without public accountability. It is important to note that everything that the administration can do in its own bill it can do under this bill. We just require them to get a warrant before they do it or get a warrant after they do it if they are in a hurry, but they can wiretap and get the information. We just provide a little modicum of oversight to ensure that the laws are being obeyed.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 222, which honors the NASA Langley Research Center on its 90th Anniversary. Started in 1917 as the nation's first aeronautical research laboratory, NASA Langley has become a world leader in aeronautics research and has led the charge in developing technology to improve the field of aeronautics. NASA Langley has worked to improve aircraft landing systems, the shape of aircraft wings, and the safety of hypersonic flight. NASA Langley also tests the configuration of many commercial and military aircraft models in its unique wind tunnel system. Finally, the Center is conducting work to enable pilots to better land in bad weather through the use of satellite and global positioning information. These improvements have led and will continue to lead to critical advances in both commercial and military aircraft. The increased safety resulting from these advances benefits us all. NASA Langley has also played a key role in furthering space exploration. From the first manned space exploration mission to sending landers and rovers to Mars, NASA Langley has made significant contributions to make these journeys possible. NASA Langley trained the original seven astronauts who flew with the Mercury 7 mission--the first national manned space flight. The Center also led the Viking mission to Mars--the first successful U.S. to that planet. After the Columbia shuttle tragedy in 2003, NASA Langley performed critical work to determine how to return shuttles safely to space, including conducing research in aero-thermodynamics and structures and materials used in space shuttle technology. These missions have helped to keep the U.S. at the forefront of space exploration. NASA Langley is also doing its part to get the next generation prepared and excited about working for NASA. Through its education programs, NASA reaches out to students to get them involved and excited about the fields of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (or STEM). I would like to thank NASA for its continued recognition of NASA Langley as a viable, thriving part of the NASA community. I would also like to thank the individuals who have worked and who are currently working at NASA Langley for their sustained efforts in making the Center a world leader in the aeronautics and space exploration fields. Finally, I would like to recognize the leadership of my former colleague, the late Representative Jo Ann Davis, on this resolution. Congresswoman Davis was a tireless champion for NASA Langley and will certainly be missed. It is my hope that the Virginia delegation can continue this strong support for NASA Langley and look forward to more anniversaries to come.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Insight Enterprises, Inc. Peninsula Center for Independent Living of Hampton, Virginia. This year marks its 20th year of service to individuals with disabilities on the Virginia peninsula. For 20 years, the Peninsula Center for Independent Living's philosophy has been that individuals with disabilities should play a major role in deciding their future. As a coalition of professionals working in the fields of education, rehabilitation and community services, the Peninsula Center has been instrumental in allowing persons with disabilities to empower themselves to truly live independent lives. Madam Speaker, the Peninsula Center for Independent Living provides an invaluable service to thousands. The Peninsula Center works to ensure that individuals with disabilities who need housing, whether public or private, can locate housing that is accessible and suitable to their needs. The Peninsula Center has also provided assistance in resolving complaints in the areas of housing, education, employment and community programs. Other core services provided by the Peninsula Center include peer counseling, and independent skills training. The Peninsula Center also provides community outreach, including disability awareness, technical assistance regarding accessibility and legal issues, and general disability related information. Insight Enterprises was founded by Ralph W. Shelman of Hampton, who still serves as its executive director. I have had the privilege of working with Ralph on a variety of issues affecting individuals with disabilities both here in the U.S. House of Representatives and during my service in the Virginia General Assembly. Ralph served as an influential member of the coalition that helped enact the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Commonwealth of Virginia knows no better advocate for persons with disabilities than Ralph. The Virginia General Assembly even passed a joint resolution commending Ralph for his work for individuals with disabilities in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate Insight Enterprises, Inc. Peninsula Center for Independent Living, its executive director, Ralph Shelman, and their very professional and caring staff on their 20 years of service to the people of the Virginia peninsula. I commend the officers, staff and board members of the Peninsula Center for all that they have done and will continue to do to better the lives of countless individuals, and I wish them many more years of service to the people of the Virginia peninsula.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, my colleague from Virginia, for introducing the resolution. I ask for support for the resolution, and will yield the gentleman, my colleague, the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of which Jo Ann Davis was a member.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Davis), a member of the Armed Services Committee who served with Jo Ann Davis.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, Ms. Pelosi.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my colleagues in mourning the loss of one of the Commonwealth of Virginia's finest public servants, Congresswoman Jo Ann Davis. She was a good friend and a tireless advocate for America's First District, as both she and the late Congressman Herb Bateman referred to the First Congressional District of Virginia. Jo Ann was a self-made woman who came from modest roots. Born in North Carolina, she grew up in Hampton, Virginia, where her father was a city bus driver. She graduated from Hampton Roads Business College in 1971, received her real estate license in 1984, and received her real estate broker's license 4 years later. She was a successful business woman, having opened Davis Management Company in 1988 and Jo Ann Davis Realty in 1990. Mr. Speaker, Jo Ann was not a career politician and probably never imagined that she would run for office and end up serving in the United States Congress for over 6 years. In 1997 she was reluctantly convinced by her friends to run for a seat in the Virginia House of Delegates. When our late colleague Herb Bateman announced his retirement from the House, Jo Ann mounted an underdog campaign. Notwithstanding the fact that she was outspent by a margin of 40 to one in the primary, she prevailed; and in November, 2000, she became the first Republican woman from Virginia elected to Congress. While we had different political loyalties, we had no differences in our efforts to work together for the citizens of Hampton Roads. Jo Ann's service on the Armed Services Committee directly mirrored her commitment to the thousands of military personnel in her district. One of her first pieces of legislation that she introduced passed in 2001. It increased the amount of life insurance benefits for survivors of members of the U.S. Armed Forces killed in active duty. Jo Ann was also a tireless advocate for the thousands of shipbuilders in her district that worked at Northrop Grumman Newport News, and she cofounded the Congressional Shipbuilding Caucus with Congressman Gene Taylor of Mississippi. That caucus has made a compelling case to the Department of Defense that it is pivotal for our national defense that the Navy spend more money on shipbuilding. In the last Congress, she was instrumental in efforts to secure funding for the refueling of the USS Carl Vinson. Without Jo Ann's hard work, the Hampton Roads area might have lost billions of dollars in economic revenue tied directly to that aircraft carrier. Jo Ann placed a high priority on the removal of ships in the so- called James River ``Ghost Fleet,'' which posed a major environmental threat to the James River and the Chesapeake Bay; and as a result of her leadership, many of those ships have been removed. Together, we have worked to secure Federal funding for the Achievable Dream education program in Newport News to ensure that at-risk children have the best opportunity to succeed in school. Mr. Speaker, every Member of this body was saddened to learn that Jo Ann developed breast cancer in 2005 and even more so when the cancer returned this year. The sadness is especially felt by members of the weekly Congressional Prayer Breakfast, which Jo Ann and I regularly attended. Despite her personal battle with cancer, Jo Ann did not retire from Congress. She stayed and fought her cancer and continued to represent the people of the First District to the best of her ability until the very end. Learning from her own experience with cancer, she has encouraged her colleagues and her constituents to get screened regularly for all types of cancer. Mr. Speaker, the Hampton Roads delegation has lost a tremendous advocate for the interests of our region. I want to extend my deepest sympathies to her husband of 33 years, Chuck Davis; their two grown sons, Charlie and Christopher; their granddaughter; and her wonderful staff with whom my staff has worked so well over the years. America's First District and the U.S. House of Representatives have lost a true friend and advocate with the passing of Congresswoman Jo Ann Davis. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Missouri, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Skelton.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, just to point out that the standard in the bill on page 2, line 10, it says that you have to execute or attempt to execute a scheme or artifice to defraud the United States or materially overvalues any good or service with the intent to defraud. That's a very high standard, not just overcharging, but overcharging with the intent to defraud or, in the second part, tries to cover up the deed. Those are high standards, and people will know that they're committing a crime when, in fact, they do that.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 400) to prohibit profiteering and fraud relating to military action, relief, and reconstruction efforts, and for other purposes, as amended.